Should people pay for new organs?

Publié le par hort

Should people pay for new organs?
byTim Harford

Last month, 20-year old David Lomas donated over half of his liver to save the life of his father, Stephen. It was an inspiring sacrifice. There aren't enough donors to go around, and 400 people die each year in the UK while on the waiting list for an organ transplant. So what about a bit of basic economics here: if we want more live organ donors, shouldn't we pay people for their trouble? To many people, the very idea is offensive. But is our disgust reasonable, or is it costing lives? 

Our notions of what should be bought and sold have changed over time. Life insurance, for example, was considered ghoulish until the early 20th century. Now it is regarded as something that every responsible person should buy. Yet there are still many transactions - anything from sex to a kidney transplant - that are viewed as beautiful in the context of a loving relationship, but corrupted by a cash payment. So what should we make of a market for organs? Dr Lee Rayfield has a unique perspective.  He has a PhD in transplantation immunology, but is also the Bishop of Swindon. Bishop Rayfield argues that it can certainly be the right thing to donate an organ as a gift, but not for money. "As soon as you introduce a transaction into giving a kidney, you have changed the whole basis of what's going on," he argues. Many people would agree.
Results count   
Yet others argue that what really counts here is not the motive, but the results. American writer Virginia Postrel has been campaigning for it to be legal in the US to pay cash for a kidney from a live donor. She said: "People want to keep it as a heroic, uncompensated act because it makes them feel good. "Never mind that tens of thousands of people are dying for your right to feel good about other people's heroic acts." Postrel's criticism sounds cynical, but she isn't the cynic she appears to be. She donated a kidney to a sick friend, became interested in the idea of a market for kidneys because of her experience with donation. "The reaction is completely disproportionate to the actual risks involved. People do act like you're completely nuts."
Regulated market
Postrel points out that a market for kidneys could be regulated to ensure fair prices, safe operations and informed consent. She also reminds us that kidney patients are disproportionately poor - and in the US, disproportionately from ethnic minorities. If the idea of a market in body parts just seems appalling, I have bad news for you. Such markets already exist. Professor Naomi Pfeffer, a sociologist and historian at London Metropolitan University, points out that the legal market for human bones and skin is far larger than any market for kidneys that might be set up. She said: "Mrs Bloggs might agree to her head of femur being used by the hospital when she has her hip replacement operation and then unbeknown to her it will be handed over to one of the big commercial organisations which are processing bone and that company will then process it. "And they've got catalogues showing the different size bones and you can buy it in powder form or pellet form or whatever. And they're doing that for money." Professor Pfeffer's research shows that a corpse can be worth more than £100,000. Some people could earn more dead than alive.
Organ exchange
It's all very disconcerting. But there is an alternative way to match patients with donors: a so-called "Kidney Exchange". Often, patients will have a family member or friend who is willing to donate a kidney, but transplant surgeons cannot carry out the operation because the kidney doesn't "match" and would be rejected by the patient's body. A kidney exchange is a computer program that finds compatible pairs of donors and patients. Al Roth, a Harvard economist who has helped to design a kidney exchange in New England, explains. "I could give a kidney to your patient and you could give a kidney to my patient. "So no money changes hands, but your patient and mine both get a kidney. That's a kidney exchange." Roth's colleagues have already made 22 transplants using matches made through the kidney exchange. Now the NHS division UK Transplant is setting up a similar exchange, and hopes to carry out the first paired donation within the next few months.
Even a kidney exchange won't be able to provide a kidney for every patient who needs one. So will Virginia Postrel get her wish that other donors will be able to sell a spare kidney for money? Or will a cash market for live human organs always be a line that we refuse to cross?
Story from BBC NEWS
Straight talk from Hort
The idea of donating one’s organ to help others sounds all very laudable and I was an ardent supporter until the day my mother related the following story. A healthy young man from Poland, came to England to donate his bone marrow to someone who needed it. Unfortunately, he ended up unable to leave the hospital because something went wrong during the operation. After hearing how one’s life could radically change from a simple gesture of goodwill, I decided that I will not willingly donate any part of my body while I am alive, but when I am dead you are welcome to take whatever is useful. Anyone who is going to donate or sell their organs should keep that reality in mind.
I am against the buying or selling of organs because it is always linked to eugenics. It will always be the poor (who need money) who donate their organs to the rich (who can pay for them), it's never the other way round. This in turn becomes a racial divide as the poor are often people of colour and the rich are often of European stock. I have seen several programs where the poor in India have become totally incapacitated after selling their organs with no medical check up after the operation and little or no financial gain whatsoever, and we have all heard about the murders of poor children in Latin america because of this trade in organs.   

Nature is so perfectly balanced that only in sickness and death do we achieve total equality between rich and poor, black and white, etc,  and I prefer to keep it that way. When I visited Ghana a few years ago, I spoke to my sister’s father-in-law who had refused multiple operations that could have saved his eyesight. When I met him he was 86 years old and blind and when I asked him why he had refused these operations which could have saved his sight, he said that “the creator had allowed him to see what he was supposed to see and he had lost his sight because there were things that the creator no longer wanted him to see.” Of course I was horrified by his response, but today I totally agree with him. If one of my organs fail it simply means that it has served it’s time and no one should have to give me theirs to keep me alive and jeopardise their own health. Doesn't the donor deserve to live a full and happy life too? Only a selfish society could think up such ideas because they have never understood that someone always has to be sacrificed in  order  to fulfill their needs and desires. 

Publié dans health-sante

Commenter cet article